When couples play board games together or take a painting class with each other, their bodies release oxytocin — sometimes dubbed the "hugging hormone." But men wielding paintbrushes released twice as much or more as the level of women painters and couples playing games, a Baylor University study has found
https://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=206875
Hmmm, it's always interested me that there are so very few women artists of any note; a shortage that goes far beyond the obvious point that women have had limited opportunities (didn't stop them from dominating English novels for a good while).
Quote from: FierceKitty on 16 February 2019, 01:09:30 AM
Hmmm, it's always interested me that there are so very few women artists of any note; a shortage that goes far beyond the obvious point that women have had limited opportunities (didn't stop them from dominating English novels for a good while).
It's possible the limited opportunities had a much greater influence than we imagine. Until recently it was men who decided what was notable in art. Also, to be fair, a few of those dominating novelists used male pen names.
I can entirely understand that the pre-modern world would have given women few opportunities to experiment with what they could do with an orchestra or a drama company (let alone building a cathedral). But there have been distinguished female novelists, the greatest of whom never concealed her gender, scientists, and politicians, so I don't understand why there was only one Sappho (I know there are assorted 18th- and 19th-century poetesses, but you don't have to read for long to understand why they were objects of derision until desperate Ph. D. students started erecting an ideological structure to conceal the flimsy building inside), or why convents didn't have idle nuns trying their hands at fresco (which started before the life-classes women wouldn't have got near), or why ladylike watercolours (actively encouraged) were so excruciatingly bad in the most brilliant period of English painting. Why were the greatest chefs men until relatively modern times? When a great dancer could at last be acclaimed as an artist, not a hooker, why didn't women muscle into choreography? Etc.
I write as one with strong feminist sympathies, not least because repressing half the talent pool means fewer string quartets and tragedies for me to enjoy.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 16 February 2019, 06:15:37 AM
(I know there are assorted 18th- and 19th-century poetesses, but you don't have to read for long to understand why they were objects of derision until desperate Ph. D. students started erecting an ideological structure to conceal the flimsy building inside)
:) Nice bit of criticism.
Is it fair to say that Sappho's songs are considered great because they so perfectly speak to the male brain?
Mentioning cloistered nuns made me thing of Julian of Norwich (and several others) that we're making significant art based on the very limited world in which they lived.
"Ladylike" suggests a very limited group who, even with the means, simply did not overlap the limited group of women with talent. One can almost picture a scullery maid making stunning charcoal sketches on the hearth and then erasing the same so as not to be accused of idleness.
(Stay with me here I am building an ideological structure. ;) )
Women were expected to put "three squares" on the table, every day, every year, for life. With the women doing the heavy lifting of the mundane, male chefs could innovate, establish cuisines, train new male chefs and award each other medals.
I'm thinking pre-modern might be all before 1970. Could easily be wrong, however, need a woman on the forum to tell us. :D
Incidently, as your wife is wargamer, your feminist credentials are solid with me.
Grateful for the last. I've had too many band-waggon careerist feminist colleagues who would have been accusing me of subverting her femininity if she won, and of ritual ravishing if she lost.
Hildegaard von Bingen, of course, was one of the first off the starting line in music. Why no followers?
Interesting study which might explain the gender disparity in hobbies in general.
I was never particularly surprised to find few women interested in playing with tanks and muskets.
The dearth in creative areas like creative woodworking always puzzled me.
It's also handy to dispel the image that the gamers are a bunch of shoegazing loners.
We're actually doing typical male-pattern unwinding (so stop oppressing me about fixing the cupboard door).
Off on the obligatory tangent:
There's a modern line of thinking that argues that women in Asia and the Middle East enjoy better equal opportunities than those in the West.
The Quacks^H^H^H^H^H Youtube "personalities" who advance this thesis will cherry pick examples of political leaders or higher engagement with STEM degree studies.
Both are extremely weak arguments for a weak audience, and easily dispelled.
You will find more women leaders under a monarchy, or a nepotistic system that functions as monarchy in all but title.
Show me an eastern female leader who wasn't the daughter of a political dynasty: Gandhi, Bhutto, Aquino, Megawati, Aung San.
You'll find a greater proportion of women studying STEM then "Arts" when your education system provides no degrees in "Arts".
Tangent done.
Those statistical snake-oil peddlers got me all riled up...
Quote from: Orcs on 15 February 2019, 09:51:04 PM
But men wielding paintbrushes released twice as much or more as the level of women painters and couples playing games, a Baylor University study has found
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8u75kD2XsAU/hqdefault.jpg)
Oxytocin level: High
I was surprised that women playing board games had a high level. The women of my acquaintance are not tremendously keen on board games, no great interest in winning. Perhaps it's the social interaction. Would be interesting to see other activities e.g. playing badminton, cooking, hiking etc.
Quote from: d_Guy on 16 February 2019, 08:30:59 AM
Women were expected to put "three squares" on the table, every day, every year, for life. With the women doing the heavy lifting of the mundane, male chefs could innovate, establish cuisines, train new male chefs and award each other medals.
Hmmmm. I think you need to distinguish between the great houses and the common folk. Granted the great houses would afford a (probably male) cook, but the men of the common folk weren't sat on the couch waiting for their women to put the three square on the table. They were out doing things like ploughing, reaping, herding and fishing.
If you are looking for an example of female produced art, how about this?
(https://e3.365dm.com/18/01/768x432/skynews-bayeux-tapestry-france_4207449.jpg?20180117045018)
Of course. One of the first a wargamer would think of. So where were the subsequent ones?
Don't be so patronising.
My point is that there are many different art forms. Art was also until quite recently seen as a job.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Artemisia_Gentileschi_-_Giuditta_decapita_Oloferne_-_Google_Art_Project-Adjust.jpg/220px-Artemisia_Gentileschi_-_Giuditta_decapita_Oloferne_-_Google_Art_Project-Adjust.jpg)(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Elizabeth_Vig%C3%A9e-Lebrun.jpg/220px-Elizabeth_Vig%C3%A9e-Lebrun.jpg)(https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-vak6ug5w2j/images/stencil/500x659/products/10851/11119/Berthe_Morisot_-_Julie_Reveuse_11x14_jvhtym__18804.1486395843.jpg?c=2&imbypass=on)
Quote from: FierceKitty on 16 February 2019, 06:15:37 AM
...or why ladylike watercolours (actively encouraged) were so excruciatingly bad in the most brilliant period of English painting...
Perhaps to protect delicate male ego ;)
There appear to have been significant social pressures for women to not outshine men :-\
Some would argue there still are :(
Quote from: FierceKitty on 16 February 2019, 11:10:56 AM
Of course. One of the first a wargamer would think of. So where were the subsequent ones?
Lady Butler.
(http://wahg.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Balaclava-768x403.jpg)
Ask Hidegard von Bingham? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildegard_of_Bingen
I've seen some absolutely stunning miniatures painted by an absolutely brilliant female painter...Sadly can't remember her name....But they get sold on eBay from time to time.
There are probably more.....But it's true, that as far as the overall hobby is concerned..the 'boys' definitely outnumber the 'girls'. (No offence intended.)
Cheers - Phil.
I used to go twice-yearly to a card making event. There was me, a first aider from St Johns and the husband of one of the organisers plus approximately 1000 women.
Was that a problem?
Only when my ticket won the prize draw and I had to collect it in front of 2000 angry eyes.
I saw the organiser's husband laugh himself silly, and the first aider checked his bandages.
What did you win?
+2.
Come on, Nobby....Spill the beans.
Cheers - Phil
Yep come on, confession is good for the soul.
I won a bag full of card making stuff. Stencils and stamps and card and inks and some things I have no idea what they were.
I gave them to the lady who I was chauffeuring.
She sent me a very nice card as a thank you.
So it was 1998 angry eyes and 2 hopeful eyes ;) ;D
Aw....I thought it might have been a nice bottle of 'sommat'. ;D
Cheers - Phil